(dissenting).
I dissent.
To sustain its determination that court reporters are state employees for purposes of the disability insurance benefits conferred by section 79.20, the majority focuses almost exclusively on the common law elements of a master and servant relationship. Those elements bear scant connection with the issue of public employee compensation and fringe benefits which is presented in the present case.
Although the district court is a state system, there have traditionally been refinements which call for local funding of several court functions. With respect to remuneration of court reporters, the legislature, for at least eighty-five years, has provided that they are to be paid by the counties of the judicial district and not from the state treasury. In addition, Iowa Code section 509A.7 (1979), in effect at the time of plaintiffs injury, provided:
For purposes of group insurance the word “employee” includes a full-time certified court reporter as an employee of each county within the judicial district.
It produces a strained and incongruous result to conclude that the legislature, which has placed the responsibility for funding the basic salaries of court reporters on the counties and has expressly provided that they are county employees for' purposes of group insurance entitlement, intended that they be considered as state employees for purposes of disability claims. I would affirm the district court.
SCHULTZ, J., joins in this dissent.